[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon
On Jun 17, 2005, at 6/17/05 7:59 AM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > Why avoid attributes? That is superstitious behavior. Whether or not individuals share the theology, that's the choice the TC has made, repeatedly. And I don't think the issue here is large enough to justify us going back and re-plowing that old and bloody ground. > If you name it for it's origin, you will add hundreds of elements. > If you codelist it, you only have to include that and maintain it. See, this is where trying to compromise gets a guy. ;-) Look, I remain persuaded that we can and should specify a single CRS. I was merely trying to address a concern about the spec alone possibly not being enough to clarify which CRS that is. I was NOT trying to open the door to forcing implementers to support hundreds of CRSs. (At most they should have to deal with two... WGS84 and their preferred local CRS. I suspect the vast majority will continue to get along just fine with WGS84 alone.) Again, I haven't heard any actual implementer report any of this as a problem... nor have I heard any technical reason why it should one. This whole topic seems to be based on a hypothetical concern for some third parties' sensitivities. Seems like we may be chasing ghosts here. - Art
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]